patrick.net

CL says

What do you think, pro or con, on the efficacy of non-violence? Do you have any historical support for that belief?

Non-violence is a fucking joke. John Brown and the Union Army freed the Slaves, not handwringing New England tract writers.

The British Quit India not because of Ghandi - who was almost a non-entity post 1942 - but because the Indian Army and Navy went on strike and British Admins and Soldiers were getting bombed and sniped at on a daily basis. Without hundreds of thousands of willing Indian troops under full British control, it was impossible for the Raj to hold on to the subcontinent.

Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael scared people into Civil Rights by demonstrating their willingness to carry and "Stand their Ground". Reagan famously banned public displays of firearms due to guys like these. The Soviet Union used to heavily publicize how Americans treated Blacks while harping about freedom and democracy, another reason for the change.

US Strikes from the 19th Century onwards were full of raging battles between Pinkertons, Cops, the local Decency Brigade of 1%ers and their hired thugs, and striking employees. Carnegie Steel Strike is a good example.

Hitler was stopped by the Red Army, who single handedly caused 80% of Wehrmacht Casualties. ALL other forces (US, British, but also Free French, Polish Partisans, Greek Partisans, Serbian partisans) caused the other 20%. Violence, violence, violence.

Anybody really think a bunch of Jews striking in 1938 would have prevented the Holocaust? Or if Russian POWs joined a drum circle and sang "Please krauts, don't kill us, don't starve us to death." they'd be alive today?

Occasionally, large numbers of people in certain circumstances can change things without violence, but it's pretty rare.

Give violence a chance.

CL says

"Eric Garner’s gruesome choking death, which was caught on video, does not elicit calls of nonviolence, but the burning of an inanimate object spurs a landslide of Martin Luther King Jr. quotes, sanitized for white consumption. If burning buildings is an act of violence, police murdering civilians with impunity must be called violence too."

Here's what happens when you give up your arms and trust an Imperialist Conservative "To do the right thing":

Athens 1944
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/30/athens-1944-britains-dirty-secret

This was the day, those 70 years ago this week, when the British army, still at war with Germany, opened fire upon – and gave locals who had collaborated with the Nazis the guns to fire upon – a civilian crowd demonstrating in support of the partisans with whom Britain had been allied for three years.

The crowd carried Greek, American, British and Soviet flags, and chanted: “Viva Churchill, Viva Roosevelt, Viva Stalin’” in endorsement of the wartime alliance.

Twenty-eight civilians, mostly young boys and girls, were killed and hundreds injured. “We had all thought it would be a demonstration like any other,” Patríkios recalls. “Business as usual. Nobody expected a bloodbath.”

Britain’s logic was brutal and perfidious: Prime minister Winston Churchill considered the influence of the Communist Party within the resistance movement he had backed throughout the war – the National Liberation Front, EAM – to have grown stronger than he had calculated, sufficient to jeopardise his plan to return the Greek king to power and keep Communism at bay. So he switched allegiances to back the supporters of Hitler against his own erstwhile allies.

Yep, Churchill armed the Nazi Collaborators against the anti-Nazi Partisans.

Much of the trouble in Greece has an origin back in that year.

By extending the franchise to women, who comprise a majority in most or all countries that have majority rule, men handed over control to women. Personally, I see some real advantages, because without women voting we would have seen President McCain and then Romnesia. OTOH, the OP seems to suggest women should have orchestrated a violent campaign including at least arson and looting, plus possibly sniper fire and high explosives. (In Britain, suffragettes did burn the country house of Lloyd George, who already supported women's suffrage. Is that why women got the vote around the world?)

In Missouri, Ferguson has a black majority. The simplest and best local response is for the majority to register and vote.

In Maryland, Baltimore saw several days of peaceful protests because that was what most of the participants wanted. Then, a small subset instigated violence. I watched videos and saw white males in their 20s with masks covering most of their faces, and black kids who had to walk home from school because the school bus routes had been cancelled. The details have yet to be fully reported, but I can tell you in California, we have self-proclaimed anarchists who ride the freights up and down the coast and descend upon protests in places like Oakland; the anarchists are mostly white, and their goal is to 'smash the state' including destroying public transit. These are not representative goals, and they are not productive.

curious2 says

In Maryland, Baltimore saw several days of peaceful protests because that was what most of the participants wanted. Then, a small subset instigated violence. I watched videos and saw white males in their 20s with masks covering most of their faces, and black kids who had had to walk home from school because the school bus routes had been cancelled. The details have yet to be fully reported, but I can tell you in California, we have self-proclaimed anarchists who ride the freights up and down the coast and descend upon protests in places like Oakland; the anarchists are mostly white, and their goal is to 'smash the state' including destroying public transit. These are not representative goals, and they are not productive.

When it comes to anarchists and rioters, they should all be shot. A white man gone berserk can be just as dangerous as a black man gone berserk.

The violent protests are counterproductive in a sense that they alienate ahem "mainstream communities", but more than that eventually the people will become desensitized to them and stop paying attention. Moreover, the ones that are likely to be victimized by the violent protests for the most part had absolutely nothing to do with original "incident" which will breed further resentment from society at large.

Strategist says

A white man gone berserk can be just as dangerous as a black man gone berserk.

Can be? Do you subscribe to the superhuman negro theory?

curious2 says

In Missouri, Ferguson has a black majority. The simplest and best local response is for the majority to register and vote.

Couldn't you say though, that freed slaves were given the right to vote, only to have it nullified? And then effectively re-granted after poll taxes, literacy tests, convict-lease and so on were abolished (or simply, renamed)? The Haitians ended slavery and got an Independent nation after violent revolution.

After Kent State, the majority of the public thought the kids got what THEY deserved. Non-violence helped the violent, n'est-ce pas?

curious2 says

The details have yet to be fully reported, but I can tell you in California, we have self-proclaimed anarchists who ride the freights up and down the coast and descend upon protests in places like Oakland; the anarchists are mostly white, and their goal is to 'smash the state' including destroying public transit. These are not representative goals, and they are not productive.

Have you ever seen the Quebec protest footage? Interesting how so many anarchists, normally seen with blue hair, goatees and noserings around protests without masks, suddenly have short hair, are clean cut and wearing State Police Supply Boots when unmasked at protests.

Also, how do all these poor, unemployed anarchists fly all over the states and the world, never getting stopped, even though they are repeat protesters and it's unbelievable the worst don't make Interpol's watchlist.

CL says

Couldn't you say though, that freed slaves were given the right to vote, only to have it nullified? And then effectively re-granted after poll taxes, literacy tests, convict-lease and so on were abolished (or simply, renamed)? The Haitians ended slavery and got an Independent nation after violent revolution.

Unarmed Peaceful Protester recuperates after a beating.

White rioters burn a bus, beat protesters.

These folks did not get beaten, and struck far, far, far more fear into the Man than a bunch of dogoodnik beatniks:

"I keep a shotgun in every corner of my bedroom, and the first cracker even looks like he wants to throw some dynamite on my porch won't write his mama again." - Fannie Lou Hamer, voter drive activist and organizer.

This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible by Charles E Cobb, Jr
http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/25632128-this-nonviolent-stuff-ll-get-you-killed-how-guns-made-the-civil-rights

“And out in the rural, when Mrs. Laura McGhee--who if she thought it necessary, sat on the porch with her Winchester rifle--permitted movement workers to use her farm outside Greenwood for a rally, the sheriff came to warn her against holding it. She told him that *he* was on *her* property, that *he* was trespassing and hadn't ever offered any protection from the terrorists who kept threatening to shoot up her farms, and that he therefore had nothing to offer her now and had better leave, get off her land. And the sheriff left.”

Reviews:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/28/this-nonviolent-stuffll-get-you-killed/
http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/item/this_nonviolent_stuffll_get_you_killed_20150206

Yet the world is becoming less violent.

CL says

n'est-ce pas?

Definitely pas. In 1968, Democrat Lyndon Johnson's escalated war in Viet Nam (including conscription) was already controversial, and Republican Richard Nixon campaigned successfully against it, supposedly with "a secret plan" to end it. In 1970, Ohio National Guard killed four non-violent protestors at Kent State. That did not directly affect the course of the war, but it became a rallying cry for the anti-war movement. In 1972, President Nixon won re-election, and in 1973 he ended the draft, in order to reduce the anti-war movement. (In 1980, the next Democrat to hold the Presidency reinstated registration.) Anyway, sorry to rain on your tribal parade, but on that topic the history of the last 100 years does not match your usual suspects: it was Democrats who initiated the draft, a Republican ended it, then a Democrat brought back the all-male registration that continues today.

You might like this bit of history better: white people rioting over sporting events. To my knowledge, no scores were changed in response to the riots.

A little "Violence to Property" goes a long way:

Cops to be Charged
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-baltimore-legal-strategy-20150502-story.html#page=1

Baltimore protesters celebrate, defy curfew after officers charged
http://news.yahoo.com/thousands-hold-street-party-baltimore-officers-charged-021024806.html

Direct Action Gets Satisfaction.

Bargaining only works if you have a big stick in case the debate goes against you.

If anybody thinks that if a few Community Leaders went to City Hall after sending a Certified Letter of Complaint, that these officers would be charged and more attention paid to Police Unaccountability and their Thug Union, I gotta Bridge to sell you - real cheap, take it off my hands for $10,000, I want to retire from toll collecting.

There is a huge difference between exercising the right to bear arms vs. random violence against innocent 3rd party property owners in the neighborhood. The latter would only lead to even less opportunities in the neighborhood.

You are very wrong on peaceful demonstration not producing results. The civil rights movement in the 60 ' s was by and large a peaceful movement. The opposition's use of violence initially severely hurt their cause.

BTW, Georgi Zhukov the mass murderer during the suppresson of Tambov Uprising should know what kind of result violent uprising against a militarized regime leads to: giving excuse to use chemical warfare and extermination against civilians.

CL says

What do you think, pro or con, on the efficacy of non-violence?

My GOP friends are the FIRST to protest the inadequacy of nonviolent means
when it comes to affairs international.

"I guess the UN will send another strongly worded letter!"
"Sanctions? When has that EVER worked!!!"

My GOP friends like to bring up Boston Tea Party and similar references
to violent overthrow when it comes to US Gubmint "oppression" they fear.

"We came unarmed. THIS time!"

My GOP friends suddenly turn Gandhi when it comes to brown people rioting.

The message seems quite clear.

As Clausewitz said, war is just politics by other means. In any political movement, there are always fringe elements hell bent on violence thinking that would bring expedient solution.

The key to what results from a political movement is often how quickly the winning side can sideline the violent elements afterwards and bring forth a peaceful society after the dust settles. Those who choose to be at the violent fringe of a political movement usually end up either getting killed during the "struggles" or sidelined after success or plunge the society into prolonged internecine mutual slaughter if they become the leading element of a winning political movement.

Preventing the violent fringe from becoming the leadership of a political movement is one of the major reasons for those in power not to take too violent a stand against occasional civil discontent. Chronic civil discontent needs economic solutions that incentivize people to productive lives.

Reality says

Chronic civil discontent needs economic solutions that incentivize people to productive lives.

Not that they have tried everything else, they might give this a try?

Reality says

BTW, Georgi Zhukov the mass murderer during the suppresson of Tambov Uprising should know what kind of result violent uprising against a militarized regime leads to: giving excuse to use chemical warfare and extermination against civilians.

I'll keep in mind that crushing peasant revolts makes you a Mass Murderer like King Richard II and most of the Monarchs of Europe 1000-1850 AD, along with George Washington who also crushed a peasant revolt, the Whiskey Rebellion, as well as President Jackson and Davy Crockett's Indian Removal Act that launched the Trail of Tears.

As for chemical warfare, the Saudis used that the last time they interfered again Yemeni "Peasants". Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds with material and research provided to him by the UK, Germany, France, AND the USA in the 80s. At the time (mid-late 80s when he was our best friend), we didn't complain about him or go to the UN asking for a condemnation against him. Hell, we also let Saddam's Air Force fire an Exocet Missile against the USS Stark without punishment or Retribution.

Not many people were killed during the Shay ' s Rebellion and Whiskey Rebellion. Besides, the brief fighting was already done by the time George Washington got involved. Btw, Washington's position on the rebellion was wrong, because he was misinformed by his friends with close ties to the banksters.

Sadam Hussein was obviously a mass murderer. Just because the US supplied weapons to Stalin during WWII to fight Nazis did not make Stalin less of a mass murderer. Likewise, Sadam having dealings with the west doesn't make him less of a mass murderer.

Zhukov had personal front - line involvement in the "liquidation" of peasants trying to defend their own harvest against Red mobs trying to confiscate the food. The suppression of Tambov Uprising involved in the use of poison gas for several months, and resulted in over 200,000 deaths. The high death toll made those involved in the killing mass murderers.

Reality says

Not many people were killed during the Shay ' s Rebellion and Whiskey Rebellion. Besides, the brief fighting was already done by the time George Washington got involved.

The Whiskey Rebellion simmered in 1791, and really took off in 1794. Washington was President 1789-1797: It happened in his second term. He rode in at the head of army over 10,000 strong, personally.

Reality says

Zhukov had personal front - line involvement in the "liquidation" of peasants trying to defend their own harvest against Red mobs trying to confiscate the food. The suppression of Tambov Uprising involved in the use of poison gas for several months, and resulted in over 200,000 deaths. The high death toll made those involved in the killing mass murderers.

Bedford Forrest* seized and burned food, so did Sherman, and for that matter it was common practice in just about every campaign of the US Civil War on both sides. Those who resisted often were shot.

Why would a Russian Civil War be any different?

* He also shot POWs as well as civilians suspected of Union sympathies.

Reality says

Sadam Hussein was obviously a mass murderer. Just because the US supplied weapons to Stalin during WWII to fight Nazis did not make Stalin less of a mass murderer. Likewise, Sadam having dealings with the west doesn't make him less of a mass murderer.

We did not complain he used chemical weapons against both Iranian soldiers and Kurdish towns full of civilians, though we knew about it within hours of the latter happening.

Because he was on Our Team(tm) which makes it okay, and not on Their Team(tm) which makes it bad.

During the entire Whiskey Rebellion, only 4 people died, and under circumstances of rebels besieging tax collector's and US Marshall ' s homes/posts; i.e. can be argued as self defense. How is that remotely comparable to the Soviet Red bandits "scorched earth" mass murdering approach poison gas bombing of entire villages and forests leading to over 200,000 deaths?

Sherman was a mass murderer, and war criminal. Your assumption that his action should be condoned is quite wrong.

Sadam did not deserve special consideration for being against our common enemy either. He was eventually hanged, with the earlier gas attack cited as one of the charges against him.

Neither should Stalin and Zhukov be exculpatory from the mass murder on account of later fighting against our common enemy the Nazis. Nor should Tukachevski, who carried out Stalin ' s command and led Zhukov into the mass murder of Russian peasants, despite himself being liquidated by Stalin a few years later.

It is simply wrong to worship mass murder as expedient solution. Most of the Soviet officers who engaged in the Tambov mass murder had their come-uppance shortly thereafter. It doesn't pay to engage in the pay of a mass murdering "leader."

Reality says

During the entire Whiskey Rebellion, only 4 people died, and under circumstances of rebels besieging tax collector's and US Marshall ' s homes/posts; i.e. can be argued as self defense. How is that remotely comparable to the Soviet Red bandits "scorched earth" mass murdering approach poison gas bombing of entire villages and forests leading to over 200,000 deaths?

So about the same number of deaths as the minimum number of civilian deaths caused by the US Occupation of the Philippines?

ln that land of dopy dreams, happy peaceful Philippines,
Where the bolo-man is hiking night and day;
Where Tagalos steal and lie, where Americanos die,
There you hear the soldiers sing this evening lay :

The first people to use chemical weapons - arsenic gas - in Russia were the British fighting with the Whites against the Reds in 1919. The Whites killed 100,000 Jews in Ukraine, btw. The last Pogram was carried out by Monarchists and Royals. The Spanish used Chemicals against the Rif Berbers, and Churchill advocated using Gas against "uncivilized" people at every turn - and in every military crisis up to and including WW2.

Reality says

Sherman was a mass murderer, and war criminal. Your assumption that his action should be condoned is quite wrong.

Reality says

It is simply wrong to worship mass murder as expedient solution. Most of the Soviet officers who engaged in the Tambov mass murder had their come-uppance shortly thereafter. It doesn't pay to engage in the pay of a mass murdering "leader."

Strawman - I don't advocate Mass Murder, much less worship it. I'm no Bedford Forrest. But I will point out that Our Team(tm) has done it.

I will point out when Our Team's(tm) lost causes, the Confederacy and the Whites do it, like Fort Sumter and the butchery of 100,000 Jews by the White Army.

I'm sure when we tamed the Philippenes with glass beads and chocolate chip cookies, and that no Vietnamese ever got shot for resisting being forcibly moved to a "Strategic Hamlet"*.

* when Their Team(tm) does it, we call it "Concentration Camps" or "Rural Gulags"

Not sure what your issue is. The colonial war in the Philippines after the Spanish-American War was one of the dark chapters in American history. OTOH, the voluntary US plan for a free and independent Philippines before WWII was one of the earliest voluntary granting of independence to former colonies in the 20th century.

Czarist violence against Jews was one of the reasons for its eventual downfall. OTOH, the Red Czars proved to be far worse than the Romanovs, to the Russians, Ukrainians and Jews alike in the former USSR.

Your perchance for exculpaing mass murderers on account of other mass murderers is frankly quite dissappointing. If that attitude is representative of the new generation of Russians, they may well deserve to be ruled by mass murderers for some time yet to come.

Reality says

Not sure what your issue is.

It's about making comparisons about defending Our Team while demonizing Their Team for the same shit.

I made this clear in a previous post.

Reality says

Your perchance for exculpaing mass murderers on account of other mass murderers is frankly quite dissappointing. If that attitude is representative of the new generation of Russians, they may well deserve to be ruled by mass murderers for some time yet to come.

I should also point out the Bolshevik Early Leaders all grew up in an era of massive Tsarist State Violence, which certainly colored their outlook.

Indeed, anti-Semites still republish the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to this day, a Tsarist State Creation. Ardent Anti-communists still apologize for Whites and commit sins of omission when it comes to Tsarist and White violence.

I appreciate your appreciation that Disgust among the Citizenry for US Imperialist policies at the turn of the Century eventually grew strong enough to reverse the Policy - I hope the same for Neolibcon Hyperinterventionism - but since you're attempting to Strawman me with support for mass murder, I noticed you mentioned Sherman but not Forrest. I await your stance on Confederate Atrocities like Fort Pillow and Sumter.

I don't have "our team" vs. "their team" bias; I don't consider what you consider "same shit" as "same shit."

1. Zhukov and Stalin were on "our team." Both were immensely beneficial to US interests. Zhukov proved to be an outstanding logistician and tactician in the war against Nazis ( and Japanese Kwangtung Army before that). Stalin's "socialism in one country" policy was highly beneficial to the US and to the people of the rest of the world outside of the USSR, compared to his archenemy Trotsky advocating worldwide revolution. However, none of that change the fact that they were all mass murderers against their fellow Russian people.

2. I'm not familiar with Bedford Forrest or Fort Pillow that you alleged. I did not address them previously because I was not familiar with them. The shelling of Fort Sumter was hardly atrocity: it was a symbolic shelling that was calculated to minimize casualty and indeed resulted in no death!

3. You citation of Whiskey Rebellion (where 4 people were killed during accidental confrontations) and Fort Sumter (where nobody was killed) as ways of exculpaing the killing of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people by some dictatorships makes me all the more reluctant to even talk about the alleged atrocities that you bring up that I'm not familiar with as the ones that I am familiar with that you mentioned are not anywhere remotely close to "same shit" as you allege.

4. Perhaps you were brought up in the former USSR brain washed by the Soviet propaganda from a young age, where a slap of the wrist on "Their team" is cited as atrocity and "same shit" as the killing of millions of people on "our team." It's not your personal fault to have been exposed and suffer from "common sense is nothing more than prejudice instilled before the age of 16."

5. It's a good idea for you to take some time re-examine some of the historical incidents from a quantitative perspective. Massive quantitative difference makes for qualitative difference. They are not the "same shit."

6. It's silly to blame Bolshevik violence entirely on Czarist despotism. While Nicholas II executed less than a couple hundred people during his multi-decade reign, the Reds executed millions! They are literally not on the same order of magnitude, or even neighboring orders of magnitude with each other.

7. Numerically, the vast majority of the victims of Bolshevik murderous rampage were actually their own former comrades. Many of them were both perpetrators and victims. The Russian experience of the early 20th century should have made it quite clear that there are few winners in a political movement where the violent wing take the leadership.

Reality says

1. Zhukov and Stalin were on "our team." Both were immensely beneficial to US interests. Zhukov proved to be an outstanding logistician and tactician in the war against Nazis ( and Japanese Kwangtung Army before that). Stalin's "socialism in one country" policy was highly beneficial to the US and to the people of the rest of the world outside of the USSR. However, none of that change the fact that they were both mass murderers against their fellow Russian people.

Agreed with Stalin, but I don't consider Zhukov a mass murderer. They used gas on the armed insurrectionists in the forests, which was explicit in the orders, which I presume he did. He was a pretty decent guy who didn't hesitate to hang rapists in his own Army - in defiance of Stalin's orders to let Soviet troops run wild. He also arrested the bastard Beria.

I don't doubt for a minute that the Secret Police may have shot uncooperative Kulaks. But I need evidence that Zhukov carried out orders to kill peasants without discrimination.

Armies attacking the populace for food is as old as man and much older than Marx, much less Lenin. Northern France was a wasteland in the 14th Century, and Germany in the 17th, because of it, but those are just two examples of many.

Reality says

2. I'm not familiar with Bedford Forrest or Fort Pillow that you alleged. I did not address them previously because I was not familiar with them. The shelling of Fort Sumter was hardly atrocity: it was a symbolic shelling that was calculated to minimize casualty and indeed resulted in no death!

Most Civil War history has been written from a Confederate Bias, I can recommend James McPherson if a Union-biased account interests you. This is why you'll seldom see mentions of Confederate Atrocities (and especially pre-War terrorism by Pro-South Bushwhackers who in one case butchered over a hundred civilians in one night) in many books-but John Brown will definitely be mentioned.

I'm not talking about the shelling at Fort Sumter - which was an act of violent insurrection - but the Concentration Camp for Union POWs called "Camp Sumter".

Reality says

3. You citation of Whiskey Rebellion (where 4 people were killed during accidental confrontations) and Fort Sumter (where nobody was killed) as ways of exculpaing the killing of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people by some dictatorships makes me all the more reluctant to even talk about the alleged atrocities that you bring up that I'm not familiar with as the ones that I am familiar with that you mentioned are not anywhere remotely close to "same shit" as you allege.

I first chose the Whiskey and Shay's Rebellion because it was the first American "Peasant Revolt" crossed my mind. But maybe it was more of a good example of protesting Regressive Taxation. Shay's particularly, since a primary cause of falling behind in tax payments was due to the Landowner and his Sons fighting in the Revolution. You, however, also stated Washington had nothing to do with the Whiskey Rebellion, when it started in his first term and became a crisis in his second term.

But I also mentioned the Philippines, which you obviously know something about because you mentioned the growing dislike of the US public for the Occupation (the Philipinnes did not obtain full independence until 1946, and only partially in the mid-30s - thanks to FDR). I also mentioned the American Civil War. And the Trail of Tears, where about a quarter to a third of the Cherokee died, pushed forward by the US Army.

4. Perhaps you were brought up in the former USSR brain washed by the Soviet propaganda from a young age, where a slap of the wrist on "Their team" is cited as atrocity and "same shit" as the killing of millions of people on "our team." It's not your personal fault to have been exposed and suffer from "common sense is nothing more than prejudice instilled before the age of 16."

Yes, those legendary US Junior and High School Textbooks, so accurate and comprehensive and created for the LCD school districts. Where apocryphal figure Betsy Ross is given more space than a Founding Father, I won't even mention the controversial stuff or the massive omissions.

5. It's a good idea for you to take some time re-examine some of the historical incidents from a quantitative perspective. Massive quantitative difference makes for qualitative difference. They are not the "same shit."

Reality says

6. It's silly to blame Bolshevik violence entirely on Czarist despotism. While Nicholas II executed less than a couple hundred people during his multi-decade reign, the Reds executed millions! They are literally not on the same order of magnitude, or even neighboring orders of magnitude with each other.

Another Strawman: I don't blame it entirely on Tsarism.

Tzar Nicolas II and his supporters were certainly responsible for far, far, far more than just the death of 200 people. The Black Hundreds, the Okhrana, the Kiev Pogram, etc. And of course on just one Bloody Sunday his Government killed or maimed about 1,000 people. His gifts keep on giving; Ford hired his Secret Policemen to write for his Dearborn Independence, and that's used today by Arabs to justify Terror...

It's also not a big leap from Okhrana to Cheka.

You'll see large scale violence against civilians not only During America's Civil War, but also the Reconstruction (and the counter-Reconstruction) by various parties. And in the English Civil War, the War of the Roses, the Spanish Civil War, the Russian Civil War, etc. Nothing unique about the Russian Civil War, relative to population and modernity.

Reality says

7. Numerically, the vast majority of the victims of Bolshevik murderous rampage were actually their own former comrades. Many of them were both perpetrators and victims. The Russian experience of the early 20th century should have made it quite clear that there are few winners in a political movement where the violent wing take the leadership.

Numerically. I can think of Cromwell turning on the Levellers, for one. "Revolutions eat their own sons" goes back to at the early 1800s at least, long before the Russian Revolution.

Reality says

There is a huge difference between exercising the right to bear arms vs. random violence against innocent 3rd party property owners in the neighborhood. The latter would only lead to even less opportunities in the neighborhood.

Which property owners had violence committed against them? Or are you talking about damage to inanimate objects? It sure as fuck worked. Maryland has a police "Bill of Rights" which, among other things, severely limit the time frame in which investigations against cops can be opened:
http://popehat.com/2015/04/29/cops-we-need-rights-more-than-you-citizen/

Furthermore, I agree with Mark Twain:

"There were two 'Reigns of Terror', if we could but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passions, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon a thousand persons, the other upon a hundred million; but our shudders are all for the "horrors of the... momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief terror that we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror - that unspeakable bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves."

But talking about Civil/Revolutionary Violence involving officially sanctioned and/or condoned executions is a far cry from a spontaneous riot set off by Police Brutality that killed no one.

The property owners weren't forcibly relocated to "Strategic Convenience Stores" elsewhere in Maryland, nor were executed for resisting movement into a Korean Grocer Concentration Camp (cigarettes sold by Guards individually, of course).

I was making the quantitative difference argument in opposite direction of Stalin. A few deaths is a tragedy, thousands of deaths is criminal mass murder. You on the other hand seemed to copy the Stalin argument that thousands of deaths is government business as usual; perhaps it is, but only in the sense that many governments in human history were little more than criminal enterprises, not as exculpatory defense of crimes committed by certain government officials.

Mark Twain made his observation before he had a chance to witness the institutionalized mass murders of the 20th century. He made the critical logical error that many 20th century revolutionaries made: the accelerated killings of a revolutionary new order is not a temporary price to pay for prolonged peace and prosperity to follow, but merely a down payment or even the first installment of prolonged period of accelerated state mass murders! The notorious Star Chamber during the Inquisition killed about 1000 people during its entire existence of 150+ years; whereas the 20th century revolutionaries fed on the illogical revolutionary zeal killed more than 1000 every day on average for the entire century, totaling up a death toll of over 100,000,000 deaths by socialist governments in one century.

Your tendency to use pre-modern atrocity in England and France as justification for 20th century war crimes is very problematic. We all have ancestors murdered someone at some point and were cannibals. That does not at all justify mass murder and cannibalism in modern society.

Zhukov did mellow considerably during the course of WWII. By the time he met up with allied commanders on the Elbe, he was quite an affable guy paying close attention to troop discipline in occupied central Europe. I will grant you that.

Reality says

Mark Twain made his observation before he had a chance to witness the institutionalized mass murders of the 20th century.

What you hear about Communism today, Conservatives and Monarchists said about the French Revolution. Like the baloney 100M deaths (which counts every death from famine, even in the wake of a war, a revolution, foreign occupation, another war*, and a civil war followed by a drought (1921), with sole responsibility to the Communists who only got full control over the country that year), 19th Century Monarchists and Religious Freaks used to claim about millions of innocents dying from the French Revolution. A charge they make today.

I believe Stalin the Georgian (Ioseb Besarionis Dze Jugashvili) was a pig, who could not rule without terror and dogma, due to his psychological make up as an abused child and ex-theology student, and that he killed millions of people.

Your tendency to use pre-modern atrocity in England and France as justification for 20th century war crimes is very problematic. We all have ancestors murdered someone at some point and were cannibals. That does not at all justify mass murder and cannibalism in modern society.

I also used the Civil War and the preceding Bleeding Kansas examples also, no?

The enemies of Modernism do not include myself. If you want to find the enemies of Modernism, search "Defeating Modernism" and see who they are.

Reality says

The notorious Star Chamber during the Inquisition

The Star Chamber was an English secular Court. The Inquisition was a religious tribunal found all over Christendom.

Reality says

about 1000 people during its entire existence of 150+ years;

The Inquisition was all over, including in the new World, before the final Office of the Inquisition will actual temporal power to enforce it's decrees was shut down in 1834. It lasted centuries, not a century and a half. King Ferdinand and Torquemada even ignored a bull from the Pope stating that all Converos (Jews and Muslims could not be prosecuted, only Heretics.) were absolved of sin, and if caught in Judaic practices, to be taught and not persecuted. They had a secret police called the Familiares who looking for Heresy; a proportion of the accused's goods were distributed between the Monarchy, the Church, and the Accuser. There was just too much money to be made from gold teeth seizing property.

The Inquisition still exists - though it was originally called the Inquisition - it just has a different name, and no power over society to ban books and command total obedience to dogma by torture, punishment, or death.

thunderlips11 says

The British Quit India not because of Ghandi - who was almost a non-entity post 1942 - but because the Indian Army and Navy went on strike and British Admins and Soldiers were getting bombed and sniped at on a daily basis. Without hundreds of thousands of willing Indian troops under full British control, it was impossible for the Raj to hold on to the subcontinent.

The problem is that Gandhi's notion was to evoke some *guilt conscientious* from the oppressing party. Sorry, but that's some religious confessional, not the day to day life in the real world. He'd confused a type of spiritual evolution of certain individuals, to that of larger organizations, which don't have such macroeconomic predilections of guilt and wisdom.

In addition, circa 1945-47, the British Empire was bankrupt. India may have been the 1st republic to gain independence, however, between '56 to '72, it was all of east & west Africa and Bahrain, who'd gained independence from the crown. In other words, the rebellion of the Royal Indian Navy, only hastened its independence by a decade or so. In the end, the British were going to leave their overseas colonies anyways.

thunderlips11 says

Yes, those legendary US Junior and High School Textbooks, so accurate and comprehensive and created for the LCD school districts. Where apocryphal figure Betsy Ross is given more space than a Founding Father, I won't even mention the controversial stuff or the massive omissions.

High school history textbooks are actually much more accurate than college history textbooks which only exist to exalt the oppressed minorities and denigrate the evil white man. I read the currently used college american history textbooks (part 1 and part 2) not that long ago, both were a total joke. So much for higher education.

Lips

Out of curiousity, what is your take on histories portrayal of Abraham Lincoln?

bob2356 says

High school history textbooks are actually much more accurate than college history textbooks which only exist to exalt the oppressed minorities and denigrate the evil white man. I read the currently used college american history textbooks (part 1 and part 2) not that long ago, both were a total joke. So much for higher education.

I feel that primary sources are the key to teaching history.

indigenous says

Out of curiousity, what is your take on histories portrayal of Abraham Lincoln?

Which kind of history? My take is that he was over his head in the first year or two, and because of that, had to turn to less than desirable authoritarian actions later. He should have stood up and managed the Army leadership more aggressively, but then again, he went in with no experience in the military, but did eventually educate himself and gain the confidence to sack the horrible McClelland, that pompous butternut.

I actually blame Buchanan for the Civil War. Both Action Jackson and Old Rough n' Ready Taylor, knew the Southern Life and knew how to handle Loud Talkin' Bullies down there: Tell them you promise to come down there and hang them with pleasure if they persist in their treason. Both Jackson and Taylor said basically the same thing and nobody doubted they would literally do it and do it well.

John Calhoun, if you secede from my nation I will secede your head from the rest of your body.
- Jackson

(On South Carolina secession threats): "Hang every leader...of that infatuated people, sir, by martial law, irrespective of his name, or political or social position." (then sent 4 ships and hundreds of muskets to the Federal Fort of Charleston) - Jackson

My only two regrets in life are that I did not hang Calhoun and shoot Clay.
- Jackson

I'll hang every secessionist there is, starting with that son-in-law (Jefferson Davis) of mine. (paraphrased from a long rant)
- Taylor

Buchanan let them whip themselves into an ardor and prepare themselves by building up militias and seizing Federal property before Lincoln arrived at the WH to take the Oath of Office. A Taylor or Jackson would have gathered a huge armed force by pure Charisma and personally led it to South Carolina to swing Calhoun, Davis, and the rest of the treacherous bastards from a tree within weeks of hearing sedition threatening an election. Jackson, not Lincoln, was the first President to insist that secession was impossible.

As for the legitimacy of secession - there is no excuse for treason, unless you win.

Lips,

With attitudes like that, you and people like you deserve to be ruled by the scums like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

No, most of the 100 million did not die during wars. In fact, war deaths were excluded from the count. The 100 million was peace time death count; far more people died under those regimes during peace time than during the wars. The enormous famines in those countries starving tens of millions of people were direct results of their misrule: called "collectivization."

It was not a co-incidence that scums like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot would rise to power in those countries steeped in worshipping "might makes right." "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolute, and most great men were evil men." -- Lord Acton.

In a system that promotes concentration of power through excessive violence, at the expense of self determination by smaller geographical entities and individuals, only the scums rise to the top.

Exactly, Rin. Economics determined that it didn't pay to run an empire, expecially when there are challengers. All the British colonies were headed towards independence and self-government simply because the cost of administration would be lower.

Ghandi's peaceful approach provided a route for the emergence of a political leadership that can continue the overseeing of trade and division of labor after indpendence. The violent alternatives would be a pointless exercise in terms of evicting the British. The communal violence between two ethnic groups after the British exit was fighting for a different set of competing interests altogether.